[Foundation-l] Future Board election procedures and guidelines

[Alison Wheeler]

On Mon, July 16, 2007 23:25, GerardM wrote:
> This means that people who are blatantly negative about
> the organisation should not stand for election. When like Danny you leave
> the employment in a huff and insists on running with the slogan: "Quis
> custodiet ipsos custodes?" it does not demonstrate a positive towards our
> organisation. Given the rather public outing of what are in his mind dirty
> linen, the negative attitude is underlined even more.

And again you, basically, slander Danny. I do wish you would stop this
unreasonable behaviour. Firstly, the statement "Quis custodiet ipsos
custodes?" was a perfectly reasonable one - it was and still is clear to
many in the communities that the openness of the Board / Foundation and
its actions is lacking in many areas and - arguably - it was reasonable
for a candidate to raise this as 'their' issue in the recent election. How
a voter views this is up to them, not you.
Secondly, it is *you* who sees this as 'negative' I certainly don't. All
the candidates - as I have noted previously - had the best interests of
the Foundation and projects at heart and therefore, by definition, are
acting and promoting their *positive* solution to improving them. That you
personally disagree with their position doesn't detract in any way from
their good intentions.

> I also fail to see why there is a conflict of interest. When a board
> member
> exits gracefully from the board or chapter, it may be exactly in the
> interest of the Foundation, a Chapter to offer a job. It is not as if
> there is a promise that such a job will be available.

Except that as the board that the person has just left will have set the
parameters for that position and thus the ex-board member has privileged
information about it to the detriment of other possible applicants (who
may not even be made aware of the possible recruitment in the first
place). This is why such behaviour is banned in many jurisdictions.

Alison